## Facts

- Dorothy A. Perry worked for Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield for about 12 years, including as a claims processor from 1983 until her discharge in 1993.
- The employer maintained a maximum acceptable claims-processing error rate of 3%.
- Perry’s error rate exceeded the standard: 3.7% in 1991 and 4.7% in 1992.
- A November 1991 review documented an average error rate around 4% over six months and noted a supervisor’s view that Perry had become “relaxed or bored” in the position.
- An October 1992 evaluation rated Perry’s performance as “inadequate.”
- From August 1992 through January 1993, Perry received four warnings regarding performance.
- In February 1993, the employer terminated Perry for excessive errors.
- Perry applied for unemployment benefits; the Board of Review denied benefits, finding she was discharged for “misconduct in connection with the work” under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the Board of Review’s finding that Perry’s repeated excessive error rates, continuing after evaluations and multiple warnings, amounted to “misconduct in connection with the work” disqualifying her from unemployment benefits.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Review’s denial of benefits.
- The court held that the Board’s findings were conclusive if supported by substantial evidence and that the record permitted the Board to find misconduct.
- The court concluded that Perry’s recurring excessive error rates, after repeated notice and warnings, could be treated as misconduct rather than mere inability or isolated negligence.

## Legal Principles

- On judicial review of unemployment decisions, the Board of Review’s findings of fact are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence; evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the Board’s findings.
- “Misconduct” for unemployment-disqualification purposes does not include mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory performance, inadvertence, or ordinary negligence, unless the conduct is so severe or recurrent that it shows culpability or an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or the employee’s duties.
- Repeated performance failures after documented warnings and evaluations may support an inference of substantial disregard sufficient to constitute disqualifying misconduct.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of unemployment benefits because the Board could reasonably find that Perry’s persistent above-standard error rates, despite multiple warnings and negative evaluations, constituted work-connected misconduct under Arkansas law.


Perry v. Gaddy, 891 S.W.2d 73 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995)